The Art of "Martial Arts"
December 28th 2008 03:39
Greetings,
If you're not interested in martial arts, this will be a very boring note for you. If you are, then I hope you enjoy my opinions, and feel free to comment whether you agree or not.
Long ago when mankind first ran into tribes of other man, and they had their first conflict, they invented war. After war was invented, there needed to be a way to fight their wars, so they took up arms. When the pinnacle of arms for a given age was reached, the intelligent and successful tribes knew that they needed to learn how to better use those arms, and in that, there was the beginnings of what would one day become the martial arts.
At first, there was no art to the process. The question was not, "How can I symbolically portray attack without an attacker present?", the question was, "How can I better be sure I stick the pointy end of this spear in his eye?" At this point, I would call it "martial science".
Obviously, this concept evolved, grew bigger and more elaborate, and it was realized that you could even *better* survive an encounter if you learn how to fight without your weapons as well as with them. Thus the unarmed fighting sciences were born. Crude, elementary, and perhaps even incorrect in many ways at first, these sciences would blossom into a plethora of options for attack and defence, until there were enough ways to fight a person that you could make the movements look interesting or even beautiful. Thus the martial arts were born.
Fast forward to around 1200 A.D. Martial arts exist the world wide, yes, even in Feudal England. Their "arts" were more science as well, but mock combat still took place for the purpose of entertainment, and so served the same purpose as in many other countries whose martial practices were more artistic.
Still, even the flourishy stylings of the artistic arts had a solid grounding in the idea that their martial art was meant to either stop a conflict without harming anyone seriously, protect yourself (whether harming someone or not), or kill your enemy. Thus, there was a very PRACTICAL basis for these arts.
Fast forward again, to a more modern day. Perhaps not quite to today, but close. The rise of the arts, just after WWII. With the integration of so many countries into so many other countries, we began to see a mixing of martial artists, and a mixing of their arts. The general public slowly started to take interest in martial arts of all types, and we began to see a steady rise of fakers and frauds. People claiming they can teach this or that, or have a black-belt in some sort of mystical, spiritual, artistic hoozemawadjit (that's a technical term). And since you have teachers teaching this rubbish, that must mean you have students. ANd if you have teachers and students, you get schools. And if you have a school, then you set precedences and make appearances, and this causes entire generations of beliefs and misbeliefs.
Ultimately, this brings us to today, when we're trying to weed out those fakers feeding us rubbish, but the martial arts community still breaks into two wholly legitimate paths: The artists, and the fighters.
The artists believe that the martial arts are *meant* for nothing more than a stylistic approach to mimicking warfare, without anyone having to be hurt in the process. These people are diligent, creative, dedicated, disciplined, and very moral. They have and deserve their place.
The fighters believe that the art needs to be taken back out of martial arts, and we need to make it more of a science, to be more effective in practical application. The fighters don't have much use in practical day-to-day society, but they will be able to protect themselves, their friends, and their loved ones a little better, and perhaps entertain people in the arena and on television via the UFC (and similar promotions).
I wouldn't dare claim there's a definitive "right" answer, although I do prescribe more to the latter group-- this, I realise, is just my opinion. Still, I like to believe that there is something of a third group, if perhaps less realised or recognised.
The third group, I would say, thinks of the martial arts as an elaborate excersize of human will. My body against your body. My mind against your mind. Let us play a game of chess, and use the preparation of our personal fitness as the medium. Let us use our knowledge of the martial sciences as the strategy. (And if you wish to entertain) Let us use the style of our artistic movements as the draw.
To put it plainly, I believe the real *art* in "martial arts" lies in the ability to put our martial capability to practical use, WHILE making it appear interesting to outsiders. The purpose for that? Making it appear interesting, will MAKE it interesting to others, and that will get more people involved who will (hopefully) improve the arts, to get more people involved, to improve the arts, and so on.
The thing is, to get to the point where this can be accomplished, you must first be good at the basics, you must first be good at the practical. Once you have achieved the practical, you must then begin the artistic. The martial arts are learned like walking. You must crawl before you walk. You must walk before you run. Being artistic, however, is a freedom akin only to flying-- and you must learn to run, before you can fly.
If you're not interested in martial arts, this will be a very boring note for you. If you are, then I hope you enjoy my opinions, and feel free to comment whether you agree or not.
Long ago when mankind first ran into tribes of other man, and they had their first conflict, they invented war. After war was invented, there needed to be a way to fight their wars, so they took up arms. When the pinnacle of arms for a given age was reached, the intelligent and successful tribes knew that they needed to learn how to better use those arms, and in that, there was the beginnings of what would one day become the martial arts.
At first, there was no art to the process. The question was not, "How can I symbolically portray attack without an attacker present?", the question was, "How can I better be sure I stick the pointy end of this spear in his eye?" At this point, I would call it "martial science".
Obviously, this concept evolved, grew bigger and more elaborate, and it was realized that you could even *better* survive an encounter if you learn how to fight without your weapons as well as with them. Thus the unarmed fighting sciences were born. Crude, elementary, and perhaps even incorrect in many ways at first, these sciences would blossom into a plethora of options for attack and defence, until there were enough ways to fight a person that you could make the movements look interesting or even beautiful. Thus the martial arts were born.
Fast forward to around 1200 A.D. Martial arts exist the world wide, yes, even in Feudal England. Their "arts" were more science as well, but mock combat still took place for the purpose of entertainment, and so served the same purpose as in many other countries whose martial practices were more artistic.
Still, even the flourishy stylings of the artistic arts had a solid grounding in the idea that their martial art was meant to either stop a conflict without harming anyone seriously, protect yourself (whether harming someone or not), or kill your enemy. Thus, there was a very PRACTICAL basis for these arts.
Fast forward again, to a more modern day. Perhaps not quite to today, but close. The rise of the arts, just after WWII. With the integration of so many countries into so many other countries, we began to see a mixing of martial artists, and a mixing of their arts. The general public slowly started to take interest in martial arts of all types, and we began to see a steady rise of fakers and frauds. People claiming they can teach this or that, or have a black-belt in some sort of mystical, spiritual, artistic hoozemawadjit (that's a technical term). And since you have teachers teaching this rubbish, that must mean you have students. ANd if you have teachers and students, you get schools. And if you have a school, then you set precedences and make appearances, and this causes entire generations of beliefs and misbeliefs.
Ultimately, this brings us to today, when we're trying to weed out those fakers feeding us rubbish, but the martial arts community still breaks into two wholly legitimate paths: The artists, and the fighters.
The artists believe that the martial arts are *meant* for nothing more than a stylistic approach to mimicking warfare, without anyone having to be hurt in the process. These people are diligent, creative, dedicated, disciplined, and very moral. They have and deserve their place.
The fighters believe that the art needs to be taken back out of martial arts, and we need to make it more of a science, to be more effective in practical application. The fighters don't have much use in practical day-to-day society, but they will be able to protect themselves, their friends, and their loved ones a little better, and perhaps entertain people in the arena and on television via the UFC (and similar promotions).
I wouldn't dare claim there's a definitive "right" answer, although I do prescribe more to the latter group-- this, I realise, is just my opinion. Still, I like to believe that there is something of a third group, if perhaps less realised or recognised.
The third group, I would say, thinks of the martial arts as an elaborate excersize of human will. My body against your body. My mind against your mind. Let us play a game of chess, and use the preparation of our personal fitness as the medium. Let us use our knowledge of the martial sciences as the strategy. (And if you wish to entertain) Let us use the style of our artistic movements as the draw.
To put it plainly, I believe the real *art* in "martial arts" lies in the ability to put our martial capability to practical use, WHILE making it appear interesting to outsiders. The purpose for that? Making it appear interesting, will MAKE it interesting to others, and that will get more people involved who will (hopefully) improve the arts, to get more people involved, to improve the arts, and so on.
The thing is, to get to the point where this can be accomplished, you must first be good at the basics, you must first be good at the practical. Once you have achieved the practical, you must then begin the artistic. The martial arts are learned like walking. You must crawl before you walk. You must walk before you run. Being artistic, however, is a freedom akin only to flying-- and you must learn to run, before you can fly.
| 26 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
